One can be pro-environment and pro-economic development — the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
While economic arguments are the most palpable, these multiyear forecasts are inherently flawed, underestimating the durability of the earnings stream of environmental assets. What value is given to clean water and air on visitor growth and land value in a world where these assets are shrinking across communities? What is the present value of visitation over more than 50 years?
Even if the measurable economic impact from mining and tourism is comparable, shouldn’t the earnings multiple applied to the revenue stream generated by sustainable practices, such as fishing and camping, be significantly higher than the multiple applied to revenue generated from industrial practices, many of which generate negative externalities and have a limited time span?
Private property rights should be respected at all costs, and while the current mine plan would sit on private ranchland, the rights of the landowners in the surrounding area and down-river must also be considered.
Finally, not all mines pose such high risks. Take the Stillwater Mine near Billings, which is located in a much more favorable ore body and less likely to result in acid mine drainage.
Decisions around the Smith River provide a dangerous precedent for land and natural resource development across our country. Central Montana, and the state at large, need a more open, rigorous debate of these issues.
Credit: Source link
